substantially certain that distress will result
1. The person acts intentionally or recklessly
2. Acting with the specific purpose of inflicting emotional distress
3. Offends generally accepted standards of decency and morality
4. The relationship between the action and the distress is causal
5. Emotional distress is severe

You shouldn't just be able to throw your res ipsa claim at the jury and say, "nobody has any clue what happened. Was there negligence?"
An expert should at least be able to say whether it appears that there was negligence.

what is the significance of custom in medical malpractice suits?

custom is accepted as the reasonable standard of care.

Duty is a question of ...

law

Breech is a question of...

fact

in what way are duty questions purely categorical?

does the def. have a duty to the kind of person pl. is. (barge hypothetical that causes flooding destroying houses)

cost avoiders who can reasonably forsee harm now have a duty by default

in determining reasonableness, what is the practical effect of moving from a "prior similar incidents" test to a "totality of the circumstances" test?

a jury would decide rather than a judge.
which means less SJ because there are more issues of genuine material fact

can breach questions ever be resolved as a matter of law?

yes, if there are sufficiently applicable prior similar incidents.

Riss

case: sued city for failing to protect from attacker who had threatened her
rule: judiciary doesn't tell the government how to act. BS--judiciary is always telling everyone how to act and how to allocate resources.

Lauer

case: botched autopsy homocide charges
rule: not recoverable. There is a difference between ministerial and discretionary acts

what is negligence in the air?

when there may be negligence, but not toward an individual because there is no personal duty.